K.K. ABDUL RASHEED Vs. P.T.P. KUNHIPATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P. No. 128 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kannur is the revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 44 of 2016, while the legal representatives of the original tenant in R.C.P. No. 124 of 2010 on the file of the same court are the revision petitioners in R.C.R. No. 45 of 2016. The case of the landlord in both the applications was that the buildings were let out to the tenants which is part of line rooms situate in the downstair portion of the building and the tenants have kept the rent in arrears and bona fide requires both rooms for the occupation of her son to start a parallel college -cum -tuition centre.

(2.) In R.C.P. No. 124 of 2010, the building number is KP VII/489 and it was let out to the tenant as per lease agreement dated 23.7.1986 on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/ -. Subsequently, the rent has been enhanced to Rs. 475/ -. He has kept the rent in arrears from March 2008 onwards. There are five rooms in the downstair including a staircase room. The petitioner's son P.T.P. Muhammed Muneeb had completed his B.Tech. course and he has no job or occupation and he is solely depending on his mother for his livelihood and he intended to start a parallel college -cum -tuition centre in the petition schedule building to eke out his livelihood for which he requires all the five rooms in the ground floor of the said building. Over and above the above said five room, there is a small single room which is not sufficient to conduct the aforesaid business. The petitioner sent a notice seeking vacant possession of the building but the tenant had not vacated the premises.

(3.) R.C.P. No. 128 of 2010 relates to building No. KP VII/487. The room was let out to the tenant as per agreement dated 15.9.1992. The monthly rent of the building was fixed as Rs. 175/ -. It has been subsequently enhanced and the present rent is Rs. 250/ - per month. He had kept the rent in arrears since March 2008. Though a notice has been issued, he did not pay the rent and did not vacate the premises. No other suitable buildings are available in the possession of the landlady for providing the same to her son for starting the intended business. So the petitioner filed applications for eviction as R.C.P. No. 128 of 2010 and R.C.P. No. 124 of 2010 on the above grounds.